Comment on The State of Lemmy (drama)
Blaze@feddit.org 2 weeks agoMonarchs are still popular enough to keep their symbolic role, otherwise they would have been disposed.
The topic regularly comes up in the UK, Belgium, Spain, Denmark etc. The usual consensus in those countries is that the monarchy brings some stability between the governments. Also, when you look at the French and the lifetime salaries and benefits they pay their former presidents, republics are not automatically that much cheaper.
taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Not necessarily. This just means that the issue of the monarchy isn’t important enough to most people to start a violent revolution over it or make it their main issue to vote on (if there even are parties making it part of their agenda to remove the monarchy).
Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
A big part of the issue is: what do you replace it with, if you remove the monarch?
It’s an issue that comes up a lot here in Australia, where not only do we have a monarch; we have a monarch who isn’t from this country and does not care for this country. You’d think getting rid of the monarch would be a no brainer. But what do we do instead?
Most politically-aware Australians look at America and decide quite clearly: a directly elected President with significant political powers is a bad idea. The Parliamentary system is a good one. But would that mean directly electing a Governor-General who keeps the powers that role has today? As we saw in 1975, that’s actually quite considerable power, kept in check today mainly because it is extremely unpopular and is seen as undemocratic due to the unelected nature of the role to use those powers too freely. But it doesn’t exactly feel right to some people (myself not included) to keep the current system, only change it from “Monarch appoints a Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister” to “Prime Minister appoints a Governor General”. That makes it feel to some to be more politicised. Appointment by 2/3rds majority of Parliament could also work.
There are some who genuinely would like an American system, too, of course.
The difficulty is in getting people to agree not just to make a change, but on what that change should look like. Most Australians are very conservative, in the sense of “it seems to work, let’s not risk it by changing it.”
I’ve also seen some people suggest moving to an Australian monarch. The Irwin family has been suggested, or the Warnes, given how iconicly Australian Steve Irwin and Shane Warne were. Personally, I like to jokingly say we should go with the Abney-Hastings, the male-preference primogeniture descendants of the Plantaginet line of British monarchs, who would be on the British throne today were claims that Edward IV was illegitimate to have been taken seriously at the time. And who currently reside in rural Victoria.
taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
This is certainly a component in most political decisions favoring the status quo too, that is a good point. By definition there is only one status quo but many options for alternatives that might not each have a majority of its own even if the sum of their proponents might be larger than the people actually favoring the status quo itself.
Blaze@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Both can be true, depends on the country.
In Spain for instance 58% of the population supports maintaining the monarchy: euroweeklynews.com/…/what-does-spain-think-about-…
But to be honest, the whole monarchy thing is exaggerated when you look at the map
Image